Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef chuck roast, cooked Leader
Beef chuck roast, cooked6
VS
Beef tongue, cooked
Beef tongue, cooked2

Beef chuck roast, cooked leads 6–2 · 8 categories decided · 2 ties

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

Beef chuck roast, cooked comes out ahead, winning 6 of 8 nutrient match-ups.

Pick Beef chuck roast, cooked for more protein, less saturated fat, less sodium, more potassium, more calcium and more magnesium.

Pick Beef tongue, cooked for more iron and more vitamin C.

Evenly matched on fiber and sugar.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    283 kcal
    284 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN29.23 g
    19.29 g
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total fat
    17.56 g
    22.3 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    WIN6.91 g
    8.13 g
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN48 mg
    65 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    WIN235 mg
    184 mg
  • Calciummore is better
    WIN17 mg
    5 mg
  • Ironmore is better
    2.38 mg
    2.61 mgWIN
  • Magnesiummore is better
    WIN19 mg
    15 mg
  • Vitamin Cmore is better
    0 mg
    1.3 mgWIN
  • Vitamin Dmore is better
    —
    —

Winners are decided by deterministic per-metric rules on the stated basis; ties and missing data don’t score (missing ≠ zero). Educational information only — not medical advice.

Beef chuck roast, cooked vs Beef tongue, cooked · Foodatron